The confrontation with the officers was consensual. We were not being detained, nor arrested. The officers asked if we had any weapons in the vehicle or house. They were told no.  The officers requested identification unlawfully, and my name, Casey Foland, was provided.  A check was ran, which returned clear. Identification had already been needlessly by law surrendered, and as I attempted to enter my home from the car, and go to sleep, I was tackled.  I did not resist. I laid limp. A 4 year old could of manuevered me to their will upon contact with my body, I did not move. Even still, I did not threaten the officers in any way, or wish any thing so much as a pimple on them. The officers proceeded to make a false arrest, and I allowed it to happen, no-contest.  The officer then knowingly falsified a police report, and made false allegations. After the illegal actions at the scene, the officer proceeded to take me to jail, and broke the law on an account of wreckless op (speeds in excess of 80 mph in a 45 mph zone. )


---------------------------------------------------

United states Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/law-enforcement-misconduct

The federal criminal statute that enforces Constitutional limits on conduct by law enforcement officers is 18 U.S.C. § 242. Section 242 provides in relevant part:

"Whoever, under color of any law, …willfully subjects any person…to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States [shall be guilty of a crime]."
Section 242 is intended to "protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication." Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 98 (1945) (quoting legislative history).

To prove a violation of § 242, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant deprived a victim of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, (2) that the defendant acted willfully, and (3) that the defendant was acting under color of law. A violation of § 242 is a felony if one of the following conditions is met: the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use a dangerous weapon, explosive or fire; the victim suffered bodily injury; the defendant's actions included attempted murder, kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or attempted aggravated sexual abuse, or the crime resulted in death. Otherwise, the violation is a misdemeanor.

Establishing the intent behind a Constitutional violation requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the law enforcement officer knew what he/she was doing was wrong and against the law and decided to do it anyway. Therefore, even if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual's Constitutional right was violated, § 242 requires that the government prove that the law enforcement officer intended to engage in the unlawful conduct and that he/she did so knowing that it was wrong or unlawful. See Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 101-107 (1945).

----------------------------------

Failure to Intervene
An officer who purposefully allows a fellow officer to violate a victim's Constitutional rights may be prosecuted for failure to intervene to stop the Constitutional violation. To prosecute such an officer, the government must show that the defendant officer was aware of the Constitutional violation, had an opportunity to intervene, and chose not to do so.


----------------------------------

In Ohio, identifying information may be required "when requested"; an obligation exists only when the police suspect a person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense, is witness to a violent felony offense, or is witness to an attempt or conspiracy to commit a violent felony offense


----------------------------------------



2921.11 Perjury.

(A) No person, in any official proceeding, shall knowingly make a false statement under oath or affirmation, or knowingly swear or affirm the truth of a false statement previously made, when either statement is material.

(B) A falsification is material, regardless of its admissibility in evidence, if it can affect the course or outcome of the proceeding. It is no defense to a charge under this section that the offender mistakenly believed a falsification to be immaterial.

(C) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the oath or affirmation was administered or taken in an irregular manner.

(D) Where contradictory statements relating to the same material fact are made by the offender under oath or affirmation and within the period of the statute of limitations for perjury, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove which statement was false, but only that one or the other was false.

(E) No person shall be convicted of a violation of this section where proof of falsity rests solely upon contradiction by testimony of one person other than the defendant.

(F) Whoever violates this section is guilty of perjury, a felony of the third degree.







_______________


The call from Jonathan Banear on Saturday, September 21, between 1-3 a.m.

2917.32 Making false alarms.

Par (3)
Report to any law enforcement agency an alleged offense or other incident within its concern, knowing that such offense did not occur.



---------------


Examples of disorderly conduct may include:
Violating noise ordinances.
Loitering.
Disturbing the peace.
Exhibiting reckless behavior in a crowded area.
Public drunkenness.
Any behavior that compromises public safety.




----------------


Yesterday the Washington State Supreme Court threw out an obstruction conviction against a juvenile who had insulted police and refused to go away when they were detaining his younger sister. The juvenile, with the initials E.J.J., directed the word “motherfucker” at Seattle police officers, according to pleadings in the case. He used other names, too.E.J.J., concerned for his sister’s safety, had also insisted on staying and watching, refusing a police command to go inside the family’s house and shut and lock the wooden front door behind him while officers dealt with his intoxicated sister in the driveway.For the conviction of obstructing police, E.J.J. was sentenced to four days of detention (served on a work crew), two months of community supervision, and 18 hours of community service.His appellate attorney, Lila Silverstein, told The Marshall Project: “We all know that speech does not have to be pretty to be protected.” And the state Supreme Court agreed. Ruling that E.J.J.’s conviction violated the First Amendment, the court wrote: “While E.J.J.’s words may have been disrespectful, discourteous, and annoying, they are nonetheless constitutionally protected.”The court’s finding reaffirmed a principle with a long and geographically sweeping history in the United States, to wit: People are allowed to call the police names, even really bad names, and really, it’s hard to imagine a name much worse than “motherfucker.” (Editor’s note: Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.)There are exceptions to this, of course. But in general – as the examples below attest – as long as people don’t resort to conduct that threatens violence, or use “fighting words” likely to incite a violent response, they can go ahead and tell police what they think of them, be it through profanity, gesture, or donut reference.